Anonymous threatens Justice Department over ‘hacktivist’ death

In anger over the recent death of an Internet activist who faced federal charges, hackers claiming to be from the group Anonymous threatened early Saturday to release sensitive information about the U.S. Department of Justice.

They claimed to have one such file on multiple servers ready for immediate release.

The hackers apparently hijacked the website of the U.S. government agency responsible for federal sentencing guidelines, where they posted a message demanding the United States reform its justice system or face incriminating leaks to select news outlets.

SNIP

The hackers said they have obtained “enough fissile material for multiple warheads,” which it would launch against the justice department and “its associated executive branches.”

It gave the “warheads” the names of U.S. Supreme Court justices, such as Thomas.Warhead1 after justice Clarence Thomas or Ginsburg.Warhead1 after justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg.

Anonymous accused the FBI of infiltrating its ranks and claimed the federal government is applying “highly disproportionate sentencing” to ruin the lives of some of its members.

[Aaron] Swartz, 26, was facing federal computer fraud charges and could have served 35 years in prison. Anonymous said he “was killed,” because he “faced an impossible choice.”

You’re more findable than you know, ‘Anonymous’. Try your little scheme and you’ll know what its like to make the federal government angry with you. I predict any such confrontation will simply end with most of the Anonymous members involved in it going to prison.

They’re right about the highly disproportionate sentencing. What they did to Aaron Swartz was a tragedy.

He hadn’t yet been convicted, so that’s not entirely apt. Moreover, prosecutors routinely use sentencing recommendations to send messages that certain behavior is considered especially bad and will not be tolerated.

He hadn’t yet been convicted, so that’s not entirely apt. Moreover, prosecutors routinely use sentencing recommendations to send messages that certain behavior is considered especially bad and will not be tolerated.

He wasn’t stupid. He knew what he was facing. He was out of money to defend himself. What Carmen Ortiz did was bullying. JSTOR dropped the charges but Ortiz kept at it because she wanted to make a name for herself and run for Governor.

He wasn’t stupid. He knew what he was facing. He was out of money to defend himself. What Carmen Ortiz did was bullying. JSTOR dropped the charges but Ortiz kept at it because she wanted to make a name for herself and run for Governor.

He was surprised by that? Heck, that’s part of how prosecutors operate: They work to run the defendant out of money, because once the money is gone the defense no longer has access to expert testimony of its own and without that technical cases like this almost always end in conviction.

He was surprised by that? Heck, that’s part of how prosecutors operate: They work to run the defendant out of money, because once the money is gone the defense no longer has access to expert testimony of its own and without that technical cases like this almost always end in conviction.

And is this a good thing? That’s the issue. This type of thing needs to stop. It’s not how prosecutors should operate.

He hadn’t yet been convicted, so that’s not entirely apt. Moreover, prosecutors routinely use sentencing recommendations to send messages that certain behavior is considered especially bad and will not be tolerated.

His behavior wasn’t bad, though. At worst, it was semi-neutral. The place that supposedly ‘suffered’ from his actions didn’t want him prosecuted. The prosecutor was doing this not out of the needs of justice, but politics.

The Justice Department couldn’t be be bothered to actually prosecute HSBC which was laundering money for terrorists, rogue nations and drug cartels, but they were willing to dedicate potentially thousands of man hours and hundreds of thousands of dollars to go after Swartz for downloading too many documents from JSTOR (which he was authorized to do, but one at a time).

The Justice Department couldn’t be be bothered to actually prosecute HSBC which was laundering money for terrorists, rogue nations and drug cartels, but they were willing to dedicate potentially thousands of man hours and hundreds of thousands of dollars to go after Swartz for downloading too many documents from JSTOR (which he was authorized to do, but one at a time).

Fuck Ortiz.

Also agreed. The Justice Department has better things to do than act as Brazil-style copyright police, and should focus its resources accordingly.

The perception and reality that sufficiently wealthy/powerful people and institutions are above the law is very damaging. The DOJ should be leading the way on this issue by actually going after some hard targets for once.